If you aren't willing to put your claims (that "all is illusion", or whatever) to the test, and to define your terms, then why should I explain anything? I should just say, "Nope, you're wrong" and leave it at that, right?

In solipsism only the self exists. In nondualism there is no self. So I was a little confused by your phrase "solipsist verbiage."

If you aren't willing to put your claims (that "all is illusion", or whatever) to the test, and to define your terms, then why should I explain anything? I should just say, "Nope, you're wrong" and leave it at that, right?

In solipsism only the self exists. In nondualism there is no self. So I was a little confused by your phrase "solipsist verbiage."

Of course you were confused, b/c you were seeing an illusion, right?

You keep using terms that are extremely vague and indistinguishable from other terms.

But of course, to use your words, you are seeing an illusion! So your belief that all is illusion is itself an illusion. So reality is not an illusion! Welcome to reality. It's not an illusion. Sorry to disappoint.

It is correct that the belief that this is an illusion is an illusion. However, the double negative positive you have arrived at is also an illusion because logic is an illusion.

But of course, to use your words, you are seeing an illusion! So your belief that all is illusion is itself an illusion. So reality is not an illusion! Welcome to reality. It's not an illusion. Sorry to disappoint.

It is correct that the belief that this is an illusion is an illusion. However, the double negative positive you have arrived at is also an illusion because logic is an illusion.

This is called the fallacy of stolen concept. You need a frame of reference (which is NOT an illusion and which you are trying to smuggle in the backdoor) by which to claim it's all an illusion. You've also contradicted yourself. If it's all an illusion than you can't say it's all an illusion b/c that assumes you have knowledge which is NOT illusive. FAIL.

Generally speaking making the determination as to whether a specific set of evidences/arguments is sound or unsound requires demonstration (in some fashion) to others.

Bold mine.

What happened to having no choice? Can we be in control of what evidence we believe but not in control of believing whatever it is the evidence points us to?

Strawman, I never said you had no choice, period, I said we don't choose to believe things. We are either convinced, or we are not. If you allow irrational arguments to convince you of things (such as a fast talking salesman at your door) then you're likely to believe more bullshit. Is that OK for you? Do you want to be convinced of things by use of bad/irrational reasoning?

To the second question, I thought my previous answer was quite clear. We don't choose to believe things. We have to be convinced (either by good reasoning or bad), and what we choose to accept as sound/unsound evidence can depend upon background knowledge, presumptions, knowledge of proper reasoning (or lack thereof), etc.

Again, do you want to believe things based upon faulty presumptions? As I've asked before, do you even care whether or not your beliefs are actually true? If not then I suppose it doesn't matter if you question your assumption. I do care and that's the difference.

If there is a God and with no doubt that they are indeed God with all evidence to the contrary and without the shadow of a doubt and they ask me to kill my child (I don't have a child, but i'm being hypothetical) i would not only say no, but i would die fighting him than to ever lay a finger on my own child or anyone's child. Never would i ever appeal to some insecure, megalomaniac, tyrannical deity. It is without question the saddest thing to ever hear stories of religious parents who have murdered their own child because voice in their heads told them to. Very sad indeed. If i did hear some voice in my head, i would immediately seek help.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

If there is a God and with no doubt that they are indeed God with all evidence to the contrary and without the shadow of a doubt and they ask me to kill my child (I don't have a child, but I'm being hypothetical) i would not only say no, but i would die fighting him than to ever lay a finger on my own child or anyone's child. Never would i ever appeal to some insecure, megalomaniac, tyrannical deity. It is without question the saddest thing to ever hear stories of religious parents who have murdered their own child because voice in their heads told them to. Very sad indeed. If i did hear some voice in my head, i would immediately seek help.

Well we differ on that. If I absolutely knew/believed in god, and the spirit world of paradise, I don't think there is anything I would do to piss him off. He might have a reason for having me waste my son. Giving my kid a one way ticket to paradise and having him skip 80 years of human suffering might not be such a bad thing. Life on earth would be a infinitely less important than eternity in paradise.

Of course I cant imagine what paradise is like, what could I do for an eternity that would entertain me. if there is a paradise man it would require me not to be recognisable me to enjoy it. Imagine eternity doing everything you love the most. to be crass, I don't think living in a constant state of orgasm would be much fun after a day or two

If I am me in heaven I might be subject to banishment after receiving my final reward for a good life. If I still have free will and am subject to the same human weakness as here I am bound to screw up with an eternity of chances to do so.

Perhaps heaven is a collective like the borg you go there to combine into a super collective being but lose your self in the process. If you lose yourself aren't you essentially dead?

1: a doctrine of classic Brahmanism holding that the essential unity of all is real whereas duality and plurality are phenomenal illusion and that matter is materialized energy which in turn is the temporal manifestation of an incorporeal spiritual eternal essence constituting the innermost self of all things

Perhaps heaven is a collective like the borg you go there to combine into a super collective being but lose your self in the process. If you lose yourself aren't you essentially dead?

All of these dualities like self/other, living/dead, conscious/unconscious are illusions. In reality you have no self now and do not exist, therefore you have no self to lose.

What reality are you referring to?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

And we should think your claims are the correct interpretation of reality, why? If we shouldn't, then why are you claiming it?

It has to resonate with you. If it doesn't you shouldn't.

WTF does "resonate" mean? Are you talking about just being gullible, credulous, or willing to accept an incoherent view just to somehow feel 'cool', different, or above the rest? That is certainly what is sounds like.

If you want others to give up their rational minds in exchange for credulous quackery that doesn't square with everyday experience, why not just come out and say so?

God, which is defined as "not two." In nondualism that is all that can be said about God due to the constraints of thought which is purely dualistic and pluralistic.

Then your term "God" has no meaning and doesn't refer to anything. Attempting to define a proper noun by the mere use of negatives ("Well, it's not a bird!") doesn't explain anything. This is absolutely no different than the Christian who can't define "holy spirit", "Elohim", or "spiritual". This is literally the definition of absurdity. We want to hear what you think your "God" is and not what it is not. If you can't define this alleged 'thing' in positive terms then how is your claim any different from superstition?

I have to ask the same question I ask the Christians: Do you even care whether or not your beliefs are actually true?

We don't choose to believe things. We have to be convinced (either by good reasoning or bad), and what we choose to accept as sound/unsound evidence can depend upon background knowledge, presumptions, knowledge of proper reasoning (or lack thereof), etc.

Bold mine. This is the problem with your position, as I see it. You seem to think it's possible to separate the belief with the process of reaching that belief. (correct me if I have this wrong - but it seems that way). I don't think you can - they are totally entwined.

Red Herring. Are you a relativist now, or perhaps someone who thinks logic doesn't apply somewhere?

Now look whose dodging...

No dodge. You asked a very broad question. And ordinarily I'd have answered 'no'. But within the context of this discussion, where you seem to be saying that we can't choose what we believe (we must be convinced), but we can choose what evidence we determine is valid (as opposed to being convinced by it) - I think it was reasonable that I asked for more specifics. Rather than asking 'valid to who?' I probably should have asked for some examples.

Well we differ on that. If I absolutely knew/believed in god, and the spirit world of paradise, I don't think there is anything I would do to piss him off. He might have a reason for having me waste my son. Giving my kid a one way ticket to paradise and having him skip 80 years of human suffering might not be such a bad thing. Life on earth would be a infinitely less important than eternity in paradise.

So you're saying that you think you would be doing the kid a favor? Life here may be problematic and painful, but there's also a lot of good stuff in life to enjoy too. I would have much rather have my kid live that than to kill him or her, especially not even if there's a perfect, wonderful paradise after death. I also would never forgive myself.

Quote

Of course I cant imagine what paradise is like, what could I do for an eternity that would entertain me. if there is a paradise man it would require me not to be recognisable me to enjoy it. Imagine eternity doing everything you love the most. to be crass, I don't think living in a constant state of orgasm would be much fun after a day or two

I don't know what would paradise would be like myself, if it exists, but i would never like to consider forever praising and worshiping some God as paradise. Now if the paradise is personal and i would spend eternity reading books and playing videos games and even write stories with no need for food, medicine, money, or even sleep, i would be happy with that. Bonus if you throw in a few hotties too (Men and women

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

In a pinch it could be defined as "oneness" but "not two" is believed to be better on the grounds that there is a slight inclination to add something to "one." However the implication is "one" and not something else that isn't two such as three or four.

In a pinch it could be defined as "oneness" but "not two" is believed to be better on the grounds that there is a slight inclination to add something to "one." However the implication is "one" and not something else that isn't two such as three or four.

Do these words form some kind of coherent idea that I'm missing? It's like...absolute maximum woo. There are no other combination of words that make less sense yet form complete sentences. Bravo!

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Do these words form some kind of coherent idea that I'm missing? It's like...absolute maximum woo. There are no other combination of words that make less sense yet form complete sentences. Bravo!

Basically, reality is oneness. Our experience is not of oneness. It's of "two or moreness." Therefore, our experience is not real.

The reason it doesn't make sense is that our thought is inherently dualistic so we cannot comprehend oneness. It does not make sense and cannot make sense to the rational mind. It's illogical, contradictory, irrational, unreasonable and paradoxical.

Basically, reality is oneness. Our experience is not of oneness. It's of "two or moreness." Therefore, our experience is not real.

The reason it doesn't make sense is that our thought is inherently dualistic so we cannot comprehend oneness. It does not make sense and cannot make sense to the rational mind. It's illogical, contradictory, irrational, unreasonable and paradoxical.

Reality is divided into 31 different pieces. It is inherently 31-istic so we cannot comprehend seveness. It does not make sense and cannot make sense to the rational mind. It's illogical, contradictory, irrational, unreasonable,[1] and paradoxical.

Reality is composed of a mystical rabbit named Frank that imposes his will upon 93% of living creatures in reality. The other 7% are controlled by 21% of the other 98% of sentient beings. These sentient beings themselves are composed of mystical rabbit material that is simultaneously black and lopsided. It does not make sense and cannot make sense to the rational mind. It's illogical, contradictory, irrational, unreasonable, and paradoxical.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Another way to look it at it is in terms of the oneness of the physical universe which is what I was alluding to in my first post in this thread. In my belief the entire universe is an illusion and that is where most of the paradox comes in. But within that paradox is a smaller paradox of the oneness of the physical universe.

Everything in the universe is connected by something such as outer space which is "not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. (Wikipedia: Outer space)" In addition we know that space and time are relative to the observer. Entanglement shows that information can travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. All of this points to oneness. Whatever energy was in the singularity before the big bang is the same energy we experience. Only now this energy is more complex and spread out. But it is still that single or one thing.

Even within these terms you can see how the idea of self/other presents a problem. For example, atmospheric oxygen is more essential to my survival than are many parts of my body. And all of my sense perceptions depend on things outside of my body as much as they depend on my sensory organs or brain. So where do I end and where does the rest of the universe begin really?

Bold mine. This is the problem with your position, as I see it. You seem to think it's possible to separate the belief with the process of reaching that belief. (correct me if I have this wrong - but it seems that way). I don't think you can - they are totally entwined.

A belief IS in fact different from the process of acquiring that belief mate. They are not the same things. One could be skeptical of a neighbor's claim that their house was broken into (perhaps b/c the neighbor is somewhat untrustworthy) but then later be presented with sufficient evidence by which to accept the fact of the situation. The process isn't at all the same as holding a belief after the fact.

No dodge. You asked a very broad question. And ordinarily I'd have answered 'no'. But within the context of this discussion, where you seem to be saying that we can't choose what we believe (we must be convinced), but we can choose what evidence we determine is valid (as opposed to being convinced by it) - I think it was reasonable that I asked for more specifics. Rather than asking 'valid to who?' I probably should have asked for some examples.

The process of being convinced involves choices (for example what we might ignore or what might cause us to practice confirmation bias), and as I mentioned before, often incorporates background knowledge, assumptions, biases, etc. I was not, however, arguing that coming to believe a certain proposition means we choose ALL of which evidence to accept or reject. Some arguments, sound/unsound evidences, or interpreted/misinterpreted experienced can seem overwhelming for acceptance. And this is why I promote critical thinking, rational discourse, and skepticism.

So again, are all claims equally valid to you? If not, how do you determine what claims are true from what claims are false?

The reason it doesn't make sense is that our thought is inherently dualistic so we cannot comprehend oneness. It does not make sense and cannot make sense to the rational mind. It's illogical, contradictory, irrational, unreasonable and paradoxical.

But of course, every claim you keep making is an illusion. So you can't know if it's true, right? So why are you wasting your time trying to speak to people when you have absolute no idea what you're talking about.

-making claims without demonstrating how you know them to be true-not defining your terms when making those claims-contradicting yourself throughout nearly every claim

Biblegod is not about "choice" or "freewill". Biblegod is about "you give everything to me or suffer for all eternity". It's not really a choice if that's your only option.

Get over such pathetic fiction.

-Nam

I can choose to believe it or not Nam. I can choose to not believe in God and no fear of Judgement or hope of eternal life with nothing to look forward to except for a grave, or I can choose to believe and have something to look forward to, and still risk a grave in Hell.

Not if you actually believe hell exists which obviously you do.

-Nam

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Another way to look it at it is in terms of the oneness of the physical universe which is what I was alluding to in my first post in this thread. In my belief the entire universe is an illusion and that is where most of the paradox comes in. But within that paradox is a smaller paradox of the oneness of the physical universe.

Everything in the universe is connected by something such as outer space which is "not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. (Wikipedia: Outer space)" In addition we know that space and time are relative to the observer. Entanglement shows that information can travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. All of this points to oneness. Whatever energy was in the singularity before the big bang is the same energy we experience. Only now this energy is more complex and spread out. But it is still that single or one thing.

Even within these terms you can see how the idea of self/other presents a problem. For example, atmospheric oxygen is more essential to my survival than are many parts of my body. And all of my sense perceptions depend on things outside of my body as much as they depend on my sensory organs or brain. So where do I end and where does the rest of the universe begin really?

So...interconnectedness? Is this just some kind of poetic, obfuscated, uninformative way of saying that everything is part of one reality?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."